IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/78/2017
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
17.05.2017 25.05.2017 23.08.2023
Complainant: Fajal Sarkar,
S/o- Late Biakuli Sarkar,
Vill- Kuthipara, P.O.- Sadikhan dear, P.S.- Jalangi
Dist- Murhsidabad
Pin-742305
-Vs-
Opposite Party1.The Manager,
Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Center
25/1 Kalikapore Road, P.O. + P.S.- Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742101
2. The Manager
Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Center,
HB-36/A/1, Sector III Salt Lake City, Kolkata
Pin-700106.
3. The Superintendent,
N.R.S. Medical Collage and Hospital,
138 A.J.C. Bose Road, Lolkata, Pin-700014
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Utpal Kr. Paul
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : S.S. Dhar
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Fajal Sarkar (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Manager, Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Center & Ors. (here in after referred to as the O.P.s) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant filed the instant petition stating that he was feeling pain in his left eye and he went to the eye clinic of the O.P. No. 1. After examination the attended doctor opined that operation is needed immediately. Otherwise the left eye of the Complainant would be damaged and also right eye would be affected. According to the advice as well as opinion of the doctor the Complainant was admitted in the eye clinic of the O.P. No. 1 and the doctor made surgery in the left eye of the Complainant on 11/03/2017 and applied medicine and injection + C+A by the attending doctor and the petitioner was discharged on the same date. At that time the petitioner felt pain in the left eye and the attending doctor stated that the pain would be disappeared within 10 to 12 hours. But after returning home the pain was gradually increased. For that reason the Complainant again came and attended the clinic of the O.P. No. 1 on the following day/next day and the attended doctor Mr. A.K. Dey had referred the Complainant to the clinic of the O.P. No. 2 which is the main branch of the O.P. No. 1. But after some examination, checkup and some test, the attending doctor stated that the left eye of the petitioner had already been damaged due to wrong operation by the doctor i.e. his vision of the left eye has been lost forever.
Therafter, the Complainant went to N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital and admitted to the said hospital on 14.03.2017 and treated there for some days and the Complainant had been discharged on 25.03.2017. Though no result was received by the Complainant but some difficulties had been disappeared but the Complainant became blind of his left eye.
The Complainant spent huge amount for treatment of his left eye. If the surgery was made rightly the Complainant had not lost his vision through his left eye. The attending doctor of the O.P. No. 1 was solely responsible regarding the damage of the left eye. It is completely deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 1 who had deputed the doctor for surgery.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for an order directing the O.P. No. 1 to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- due to lose of vision and damage of the left eye, and Rs. 1,00,000/- for expenditure regarding treatment and food and lodging and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
Defence Case
After due service of the notices O.P.s appeared by filing W/V. O.P. 1 has stated in the W/V that the Complainant came to the O.P. No. 1 with Eye Infection in Whole Eye and with Eye Pain. The Complainant was clinically examined by Eye Retina Specialist Dr. Kishore Satpute. The Doctor has a Degree of M.B.B.S., M.S, F.V.R.S. He is an experienced Doctor. The Doctor clinically examined the Complainant and the Patient was diagnosised as a Patient of “Endophthalmitis” i.e., whole Eye Infection. The “Endophthalmitis” is very dangerous for the Retina of the Eye. Prolonged treatment is required for such type of Infection. The Doctor who treated the Patient referred the Complainant to Retina Clinic of O.P. No. 2, Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Centre, Kolkata, where the infrastructure for such treatment is better. But to control the infection the Doctor of O.P. No. 1, administered an intravitreal injection viz Vancomycin Ceftazidimine Amphotericin – B (V+C+A) which is very much required for “Endophthalmitis”. The Doctor of O.P. No. 1 has done his duty with care. The administration of injection (V+C+A) is not a Surgery. The Doctor K. Satpute never operated the Patient.
When the Patient was presented before Dr. Satpute then he carefully examined the Complainant and after diagonisis the patient was referred to O.P. No. 2, where infrastructure for retinal treatment is excellent one and for emergency management (V+C+A) injection was administered.
O.P. 2 has stated in his W/V that Fajal Sarkar, the Complainant was referred from Susrut Eye Foundation and Research Centre at Berhampore to the O.P. No. 2 Susrut Eye Foundation and Research Centre at Kolkata. The Complainant underwent LE. Intravitreal antibiotic injunction on 11.03.2017 for endopthalmistis at O.P. No. 1 institution. The Patient was referred to Susrut Retina Clinic Kolkata, The patient was reviewed at Susrut Retina Clinic Kolkata on 13.03.2017 and the patient was diagnosed panophthalmitis LE, with no perception of light. The patient was advised LE. evisceration for relief of painful blind eye and he was asked to continue all medications. The outcome of the disease was discussed and fully explained to the Patient Party. That there was no deficiency of service in treating the patient and the patient was treated scientifically with approved treatment for panophthalmitis in Berhampore, as well as Kolkata. There was no negligence on behalf of the O.P. 2.
O.P. 3 Superintendent, N.R.S. Medical Collage and Hospital, 138, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, Pin 700014, has not contested the case. The point to be noted is that the Complainant did not claim any relief against this O.P. 3.
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1
We peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
The point to be noted is that today (23.08.2023) is fixed for hearing of argument. But the Complainant is found absent on call. The record shows that the Complainant was found absent on call on 10.08.2023, 06.06.2023 and 15.03.2023. Today Ld. Advocate for the O.P. is present. Such being the position argument heard on behalf of the O.P. 1 & O.P. 2.
It is alleged in Paras 3 & 4 of the complaint that the attending doctor Mr. A.K. Dey of the O.P. 1 had referred the Complainant to the clinic of the O.P. No. 2 which is the main branch of the O.P. No. 1. But after some examination, checkup and some test, the attending doctor stated that the left eye of the petitioner had already been damaged due to wrong operation by the doctor i.e. his vision of the left eye has been lost forever.
But on perusing the W/V of the O.P. 2 we find that O.P. 2 has never admitted the aforementioned bold line. O.P. 2 has clearly stated in his W/V that Fajal Sarkar, the Complainant was referred from Susrut Eye Foundation and Research Centre at Berhampore to the O.P. No. 2 Susrut Eye Foundation and Research Centre at Kolkata. The Complainant underwent LE. Intravitreal antibiotic injunction on 11.03.2017 for endopthalmistis at O.P. No. 1 institution. The Patient was referred to Susrut Retina Clinic Kolkata, The patient was reviewed at Susrut Retina Clinic Kolkata on 13.03.2017 and the patient was diagnosed panophthalmitis LE, with no perception of light. The patient was advised LE. evisceration for relief of painful blind eye and he was asked to continue all medications. The outcome of the disease was discussed and fully explained to the Patient Party. That there was no deficiency of service in treating the patient and the patient was treated scientifically with approved treatment for panophthalmitis in Berhampore, as well as Kolkata.
On perusing the materials on record we find that the Complainant has filed the instant case alleging deficiency of service on the part of O.P. 1 on the basis of the opinion of the attending doctor of O.P. 2. But the said fact is not proved, on the contrary, the O.P. 2 speaks otherwise.
The point to be noted is that the claimant has not claimed any relief against O.P. 2 & O.P. 3.
In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of O.P. 1 and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 17.05.2017 and admitted on 25.05.2017. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/78/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
